Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

movies/tv God's not dead movie


ShintX

Recommended Posts

I kinda liked this film. But its interesting how atheism in USA differs from the rest of the world. While in the US its more likely "Theism VS Atheism". While in Europe and all other places its more like "who gives a crap".

 

But i really liked the message it try to portray. That one can be just as bad as the other etc. I feel much of the internet have made this war against christianity. So its kinda cool that its a movie in terms of the opposite side.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While i have not seen the movie myself, i have heard what is in this movie, the Atheism described in the movie is unrealistic, most Atheists are not anti-theist, like my self, i do not hate Christianity, i do not like radical extremist Christians, people like WBC and people who use their religious beliefs to justify their hatred of others, who selectively read their holy book ignoring what they dont like, shove their beliefs down the throats of people who dont agree with them, those are the kind of religious people i and several other Atheists dont like, most Atheists i know and have met do not hate religion, i myself believe that people are free to believe what ever they want as long as they dont force their beliefs onto others, or use their beliefs to hate others   

  • Brohoof 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't like how they depicted atheists as people who are mad at God and therefore they don't believe in him.

That's pretty much the vibe I got from the film.

The movie attacked atheism more from a philosophical standpoint rather than a scientific.

In real life atheists have better reasons to doubt the existence of God.

 

Hey, I'm a Christian, but these are just some of my thoughts on the film.

  • Brohoof 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Film is nothing more than Christian fundamentalist propaganda. It depicts atheists as anti-religion (I'm not entirely anti-religion, like I believe that religions are foolish and nowadays only serve to control people, but if you keep your beliefs to yourself I'm fine with it) and Christians as a minority (a common Christian fundie trope) when, in reality, Christianity is the majority religion in America. How is it a remote possibility that you'd be the only Christian in a class when one in four American adults believe in Christianity? There's some stereotypical depictions of other religions, too. Converting these purported "atheists" was also too easy.

 

Basically, it's propaganda, and take what it says with a pinch of salt.

  • Brohoof 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the message was being handled well . . . . until the second half of the movie.

 

See, at the beginning, all of the students wrote "God is dead" as an admittance to that central premise of the class with one student not folding to that conceit. Iregardless of your belief, I think we can all sympathize with the feeling of being the only one in your peer group saying what you're saying.

 

Throughout the movie, Josh is giving at least credible arguments in the support of God's existence. Never saying that he's right, but voicing that the other side should be heard and presenting his evidence to support his beliefs.

 

Meanwhile, a subplot about a very traditional Muslim family having to disown their daughter when she converts to Christianity is fleshed out. The father in particular, is actually a very realized character. He wants his daughter to grow up in the faith, but allows her to attend school. When he finds out she's converted, he does basically disown her, but he doesn't hate her for it. (In fact it destroys him as we see him basically breaking down after she's out of the house.)

 

At last, Josh states to Rattisan that whether God's real or not, the students should be allowed to reach their own conclusions rather than having one superimposed upon them by him or anyone else.

 

See, this is nuance, this is treating the subject of faith with respect as to how personal and internally as well as externally challenging it can be.

 

. . . . Too bad they invalidate it the very next second!  :derp:  

 

Yeah, not even kidding, Josh turns to the class and ask who agrees with him. They ALL stand up! Way to kill the power of your own message, movie. So they started as sheep, and ended as sheep. There's a reason why the ending to Dead Poet's Society is a triumphant one despite the morbid circumstance. Even though some, even most, will bow their head out of fear, the precious few will not be broken.

 

This movie didn't end with that. Which made even less sense, because there were a few characters that asked questions, and as the camera focused on them you could see they were digesting and considering Josh's presentation. Reaching their own conclusions. If they, and ONLY they, had stood up; this movie could have reached across the board and really spoken to people.

 

Instead, they shot themselves in the foot.  :okiedokielokie:

 

There's also the ultimate fate of one of the characters that honestly felt like it belonged in a Puritan setting and not a modern one, but that's near the very end where the movie's potential has already pretty much disappeared anyway.

 

It's not a bad movie to be sure, I am glad I saw it. However, the second half feels like such a drastic shift in direction that I honestly wonder if "something" anything happened during production. Change in staff, script re-write, anything!


Film is nothing more than Christian fundamentalist propaganda. It depicts atheists as anti-religion (I'm not entirely anti-religion, like I believe that religions are foolish and nowadays only serve to control people, but if you keep your beliefs to yourself I'm fine with it) and Christians as a minority (a common Christian fundie trope) when, in reality, Christianity is the majority religion in America. How is it a remote possibility that you'd be the only Christian in a class when one in four American adults believe in Christianity? There's some stereotypical depictions of other religions, too. Converting these purported "atheists" was also too easy.

 

Basically, it's propaganda, and take what it says with a pinch of salt.

 

Well, as I outlined above, it actually seemed like it was more nuanced at the start and allowed the audience their own conclusions. The Muslim family were not portrayed as evil, just having a complicated relation with mainstream society, something many actual Muslims do struggle with. Josh isn't trying to impose Christian values on anyone, he's just refusing to be brow beaten into stating something he believes isn't true.

 

Suddenly it takes a turn right into propaganda territory. Rattisan is given the tragic backstory, he hates God, yadda yadda yadda.

 

I honestly don't think that was intentional on their part. Of course, one could argue that's even more insidious, when one makes propaganda unintentionally. My point is simply that the movie had some potential to be a good talking piece on the intellectual value of it's content, rather than arguing if it failed to deliver or had such in the first place as you and I are discussing now.

  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have to give my two cents about this movie! :]

 

I am a Christian, and this movie quickly became one of my personal favorites. I loved how they portrayed Christianity and I was satisfied with it. I was born and raised a Christian, and like I said I currently am, so this movie hit home quickly. However, many people say that the way atheists are portrayed in this movie is far from reality, and I want to say my opinion based on personal experiences and from other people's experiences as well.

 

I recognize there are Christians and Christians that only give themselves that name and do not act like the Bible instructs us to do and do not follow Jesus's teachings. There are Christians who do, and like myself, prefer to preach through their life testimony. As well, there are very nice and awesome atheists [like my uncle] who respect Christians completely and simply could not care less about Christians and their lifestyles, but do not want to embrace it themselves. [High five to those who act like this!] 

 

However, there are nasty atheists that like to lurk around the Internet, waiting for someone to shout "GOD!" to simply come down to them and drown them with atheist logic. Christians do this as well with atheists, shoving God down their throats. So it's pretty even in both sides. 

 

However, there are atheists in universities, schools and the like, and I once had an atheist teacher that gave me an F in an exam, two D's and gave me a C in class because I was a Christian. The minute she saw me with a Christian shirt [ihadnoideashewasanatheist-w-] she began to say awful things about God and to treat me harshly. When I contacted her, she had left to Germany, so I left everything as it was. I forgave her, however.

 

The thing is, the film may have exaggerated by generalizing that "all" atheists are like this, but I think that the film only focused on a certain type of atheism that we cannot deny that it exists. Just surf for a while on the internet, especially on Youtube, and you'll see many atheists like this, that attack us Christians without mercy. The same way around, though, and I'm making it clear just in case.

 

All in all, I think the movie is much more oriented towards the Christian community. I hate it when people call this movie "propaganda." It isn't, in my point of view. [To each their own.] It is a film that wants to preach about God, which is what Christians are expected to do by Jesus's teachings and what we true Christians do out of love for God's word and what He has done for us. We're just so thankful and happy that we have to talk about it. The movie is just an amplified version of that feeling, and it spoke to many, and many hated it. The fact that many people hated the movie could have been easily solved by not watching it in the first place. [When I'm not okay with a movie topic, I simply do not watch it. Just because it's on theaters does not mean I will go and watch it.] If you knew that it was about God and Christians vs. atheists [which I strongly dislike how it sounds like, but it's true] then you can imagine what the movie is going to be like. And also, why does the movie God is Not Dead get such a bad rep, but movies that explicitly show sex, rape scenes [i'm looking at you, The November Man], drugs, violence, assassination, murder, kidnapping, torture and other things get the highest ratings? Ah, I dunno, maybe humans are naturally evil-inclined. They repulse against everything good or harmless, but feed off negativity. Many people will say, "But religion is bad!!!!! PEOPLE KILL BECAUSE OF RELIGION!!!!!!!" Yeah, it is! Even Jesus came to earth and fought against it. But, dunno. That's just me.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the "God is Dead" argument from Nietzche?

I am not 100% at Philosophy.

 

Yes, but the movie simplifies it to an insulting degree. The man himself would probably chew Professor Rattisan out for quoting him out of context.

 

It comes from The Gay Science, and the full quote reads thusly:

 

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

 

Far from a triumphant cry at the defeat of superstition, Nietzche was remarking on how man had come to a point where the "worship" of anything became obsolete. Life with no intrinsic value simply because said value was not empirically observable.

 

Nietzche also wrote Thus Spoke Zarathustra which is the source of one of my favorite quotes in accordance with, not in spite of, my deeply religious beliefs.

 

"Companions, the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeks—those who write new values on new tablets. Companions, the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest."

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the "God is Dead" argument from Nietzche?

I am not 100% at Philosophy.

Basically yeah.

 

I'm an atheist myself. I am pretty fine with other religions, i have some sceptic views on islam due to theocratic values. Out of realistic outlook of how the theology is interpreted. While in Christianity have a modern interpretation in the bible which works with democracy, which is the "Give caesar what is caesar's, and god what is god". So thats ok.

 

It has more to do with the set of rule which i am against, which is what i see in islamic countries where theocracy is the set of rule. And thats the outcome of theocracy, which i am against, therefor i am sorta against islam for that manner, but then again there have been suggestion of taking theocracy out of the religion, it all depends how one interpret it either way. it wouldn't bother me so much if it haven't had the views that theocracy is better than democracy. Thats basically a reactionary way of thinking which is the outcome to why there exists so many islamic terroristgroups.

 

Its kinda like if you want to build a bad house with bad nails instead of a better house with good nails, and thats a bad idea. But they believe its a good idea, which is just delusional. Just being realistic in that sense.

 

But i think aslong as i meet someone i like and have common interest with, then i won't be bothered with it. Religion doesn't bother me, nor do i think anything less even if someone believes in this and that :)

Edited by ShintX
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, it is just a one sided propaganda film and even worse, it's a really bad one at that. From what I have seen, all it exists for is to say that Christianity is right and everyone else on the planet is wrong. Apparently not only does a random atheist kid convert to Christianity in the film, but also a Muslim kid. It's takes the incredibly dumb 'atheists just hate god' approach and that makes zero sense since I have no reason to hate something that I don't believe exists. It also does the cliche 'someone has cancer and then they get better for no reason therefore god' thing. That is a really tired thing in movies like this..

 

If the movie could have explored both sides of the coin, instead of just saying that Christians are these victims of modern society, then maybe it could have had at least one redeemable factor. Instead, it is just immensely shallow.

 

I am an atheist myself and while I actually don't like religion as a whole, I don't care if someone is religious or not and I don't care about religious movies usually, but this one was just....terrible. One of the worst movies I have ever witnessed and that is saying a whole lot. It's just that nonsensical.

 

Again, that's just my opinion is all. If you did enjoy the movie, then you enjoy what you enjoy, I just see it as a terrible film.

  • Brohoof 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have to give my two cents about this movie! :]

 

I am a Christian, and this movie quickly became one of my personal favorites. I loved how they portrayed Christianity and I was satisfied with it. I was born and raised a Christian, and like I said I currently am, so this movie hit home quickly. However, many people say that the way atheists are portrayed in this movie is far from reality, and I want to say my opinion based on personal experiences and from other people's experiences as well.

 

I recognize there are Christians and Christians that only give themselves that name and do not act like the Bible instructs us to do and do not follow Jesus's teachings. There are Christians who do, and like myself, prefer to preach through their life testimony. As well, there are very nice and awesome atheists [like my uncle] who respect Christians completely and simply could not care less about Christians and their lifestyles, but do not want to embrace it themselves. [High five to those who act like this!] 

 

However, there are nasty atheists that like to lurk around the Internet, waiting for someone to shout "GOD!" to simply come down to them and drown them with atheist logic. Christians do this as well with atheists, shoving God down their throats. So it's pretty even in both sides. 

 

However, there are atheists in universities, schools and the like, and I once had an atheist teacher that gave me an F in an exam, two D's and gave me a C in class because I was a Christian. The minute she saw me with a Christian shirt [ihadnoideashewasanatheist-w-] she began to say awful things about God and to treat me harshly. When I contacted her, she had left to Germany, so I left everything as it was. I forgave her, however.

 

The thing is, the film may have exaggerated by generalizing that "all" atheists are like this, but I think that the film only focused on a certain type of atheism that we cannot deny that it exists. Just surf for a while on the internet, especially on Youtube, and you'll see many atheists like this, that attack us Christians without mercy. The same way around, though, and I'm making it clear just in case.

 

All in all, I think the movie is much more oriented towards the Christian community. I hate it when people call this movie "propaganda." It isn't, in my point of view. [To each their own.] It is a film that wants to preach about God, which is what Christians are expected to do by Jesus's teachings and what we true Christians do out of love for God's word and what He has done for us. We're just so thankful and happy that we have to talk about it. The movie is just an amplified version of that feeling, and it spoke to many, and many hated it. The fact that many people hated the movie could have been easily solved by not watching it in the first place. [When I'm not okay with a movie topic, I simply do not watch it. Just because it's on theaters does not mean I will go and watch it.] If you knew that it was about God and Christians vs. atheists [which I strongly dislike how it sounds like, but it's true] then you can imagine what the movie is going to be like. And also, why does the movie God is Not Dead get such a bad rep, but movies that explicitly show sex, rape scenes [i'm looking at you, The November Man], drugs, violence, assassination, murder, kidnapping, torture and other things get the highest ratings? Ah, I dunno, maybe humans are naturally evil-inclined. They repulse against everything good or harmless, but feed off negativity. Many people will say, "But religion is bad!!!!! PEOPLE KILL BECAUSE OF RELIGION!!!!!!!" Yeah, it is! Even Jesus came to earth and fought against it. But, dunno. That's just me.

 

Agreed all too much. I'm so sorry you received such harsh treatment. I've never endured such in my actual life. (Although maybe I just didn't notice it during all the other stuff during boot camp.)

 

Anyway though, yes I did like the movie even if it went in a direction I thought made it poorer overall. However there is one part where I draw the line and seriously want to ask the creators what they were thinking.

 

(SPOILERS)

 

Professor Radisson's death! Seriously? The guy is literally on the road to redemption and God Himself practically slams the pearly gates in his face?! What the literal Hell?! This goes along with my earlier criticism, if you were trying to teach a movie about the Christian value of forgiveness and redemption, why kill the character on his way to redemption?

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the "God is Dead" argument from Nietzche?

I am not 100% at Philosophy.

Yes, Nietzsche claimed that. Sigmund Freud said that 'God is Dad'. The psychological implication of that should be pretty obvious.

Edited by Roughshod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, it is just a one sided propaganda film and even worse, it's a really bad one at that. From what I have seen, all it exists for is to say that Christianity is right and everyone else on the planet is wrong. Apparently not only does a random atheist kid convert to Christianity in the film, but also a Muslim kid. It's takes the incredibly dumb 'atheists just hate god' approach and that makes zero sense since I have no reason to hate something that I don't believe exists. It also does the cliche 'someone has cancer and then they get better for no reason therefore god' thing. That is a really tired thing in movies like this..

 

If the movie could have explored both sides of the coin, instead of just saying that Christians are these victims of modern society, then maybe it could have had at least one redeemable factor. Instead, it is just immensely shallow.

 

I am an atheist myself and while I actually don't like religion as a whole, I don't care if someone is religious or not and I don't care about religious movies usually, but this one was just....terrible. One of the worst movies I have ever witnessed and that is saying a whole lot. It's just that nonsensical.

 

Again, that's just my opinion is all. If you did enjoy the movie, then you enjoy what you enjoy, I just see it as a terrible film.

 

Well as I keep trying to point out, it started looking pretty good. More proposing questions than giving answers. It's only toward the end that we take a dive into the Orwell machine.

 

While I agree with you in that the movie delivered it's message poorly, I do have a specific issue with your problems on the convertees in the movie though. Martin didn't just convert overnight, he listened to Josh's observations, pondered them, debated them, asked questions. The conclusion he came to was his own, Josh just lead him to the well, he didn't make him drink. He's the character who I believe is genuine when he stands up at the end.

 

Ayisha's not as well played out, but that's because her intent is deliberately hidden. Her budding faith in Christ puts her in actual danger, so of course she would hide it. We get hints here and there that she's not as invested in Islam as her father is, but we're not given much context for it until we see her ipod. It's not as well developed as Martin's, but her conversion doesn't come off as fake either, just with a different situation. (And again, the fact that her father "merely" disowns her and doesn't hurt her, as well as that act alone causing him to break down shows a level of respect to what could have been a two dimensional caricature.)

 

What about either of these characters do you think made their conversion not believable?

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but the movie simplifies it to an insulting degree. The man himself would probably chew Professor Rattisan out for quoting him out of context.

 

It comes from The Gay Science, and the full quote reads thusly:

 

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

 

Far from a triumphant cry at the defeat of superstition, Nietzche was remarking on how man had come to a point where the "worship" of anything became obsolete. Life with no intrinsic value simply because said value was not empirically observable.

 

Nietzche also wrote Thus Spoke Zarathustra which is the source of one of my favorite quotes in accordance with, not in spite of, my deeply religious beliefs.

 

"Companions, the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeks—those who write new values on new tablets. Companions, the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest."

Yeah, there's a lot of nuance in the statement "God is dead" that people seem to miss.

 

It's a very unusual word choice, because atheists don't believe that "God is dead", they believe he simply never existed in the first place.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, there's a lot of nuance in the statement "God is dead" that people seem to miss.

 

It's a very unusual word choice, because atheists don't believe that "God is dead", they believe he simply never existed in the first place.

That phrase is just merely used by anti-theists to enrage Christians.

A more appropriate way of stating that you do not believe in God would be "God has never existed".

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, there's a lot of nuance in the statement "God is dead" that people seem to miss.

 

It's a very unusual word choice, because atheists don't believe that "God is dead", they believe he simply never existed in the first place.

 

Well that's exactly what Radisson is playing up to when he makes the class write that down. He admits to it being false in it's literal meaning, but uses it to illustrate his point.

 

Again though, he's taking the quote wildly out of context as to it's original meaning, something a professor of philosophy should really know better than to do.

 

For instance, if I were to quote C.S. Lewis when he said:

 

"Friendship is unnecessary. It has no survival value." You'd think he was a pretty mean guy. That's not the whole quote though.
 
"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival." See, you can make Ayn Rand sound like President Roosevelt if you're either too lazy or otherwise willfully misleading.
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as I keep trying to point out, it started looking pretty good. More proposing questions than giving answers. It's only toward the end that we take a dive into the Orwell machine.

 

While I agree with you in that the movie delivered it's message poorly, I do have a specific issue with your problems on the convertees in the movie though. Martin didn't just convert overnight, he listened to Josh's observations, pondered them, debated them, asked questions. The conclusion he came to was his own, Josh just lead him to the well, he didn't make him drink. He's the character who I believe is genuine when he stands up at the end.

 

Ayisha's not as well played out, but that's because her intent is deliberately hidden. Her budding faith in Christ puts her in actual danger, so of course she would hide it. We get hints here and there that she's not as invested in Islam as her father is, but we're not given much context for it until we see her ipod. It's not as well developed as Martin's, but her conversion doesn't come off as fake either, just with a different situation. (And again, the fact that her father "merely" disowns her and doesn't hurt her, as well as that act alone causing him to break down shows a level of respect to what could have been a two dimensional caricature.)

 

What about either of these characters do you think made their conversion not believable?

What bothers me most about the whole 'conversions' aspect is, like the rest of the film, how one sided it is. All we see are people being convinced that Christianity is the one true religion and it shows no other sides to that coin. It doesn't just anything like Christian to Islam, Islam to atheist, atheist to Islam, or any other potential viewpoint someone could have, it just goes down the road of 'in the end, Christianity is the one that's right' and on top of that it shows atheists is not only a bad light, but a really stupid one too. There are a lot of things I cannot remember completely from the movie because it was just that bad.

 

I am not saying that the conversions are not believable. It's how they are handled and portrayed here. It doesn't show any other sides, it just boils down to 'Christianity is the right one and you should follow it'. The movie to me is like a flat square that should be a cube. You only see one side when you should be seeing multiple, but the filmmakers apparently did not want to give any notion that just maybe another viewpoint could be right, whatever it might be. You just have blank canvases from the start representing Christianity, Islam, and atheism. Two of these canvases go right to Christianity in the end and we see no other paths taken.

 

The conversions are just one of the films many, many problems, if not one of the lesser ones.

 

Again, I am not saying that anyone in these viewpoints are right or wrong, it's strictly how terribly this movie handles it's 'message'. I hope I am not giving any implications that I am taking jabs at anyone's beliefs because I don't want to give that impression.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dream of a time where there is no religion, only God, and that those who hide behind the false image of the Son of Man shall soon stand before Him. God is not religion, but a spiritual bond.

 

This movie is not deservant of such a low imdb score, but is indeed deserving of criticism for displaying people as cardboard.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What bothers me most about the whole 'conversions' aspect is, like the rest of the film, how one sided it is. All we see are people being convinced that Christianity is the one true religion and it shows no other sides to that coin. It doesn't just anything like Christian to Islam, Islam to atheist, atheist to Islam, or any other potential viewpoint someone could have, it just goes down the road of 'in the end, Christianity is the one that's right' and on top of that it shows atheists is not only a bad light, but a really stupid one too. There are a lot of things I cannot remember completely from the movie because it was just that bad.

 

I am not saying that the conversions are not believable. It's how they are handled and portrayed here. It doesn't show any other sides, it just boils down to 'Christianity is the right one and you should follow it'. The movie to me is like a flat square that should be a cube. You only see one side when you should be seeing multiple, but the filmmakers apparently did not want to give any notion that just maybe another viewpoint could be right, whatever it might be. You just have blank canvases from the start representing Christianity, Islam, and atheism. Two of these canvases go right to Christianity in the end and we see no other paths taken.

 

The conversions are just one of the films many, many problems, if not one of the lesser ones.

 

Again, I am not saying that anyone in these viewpoints are right or wrong, it's strictly how terribly this movie handles it's 'message'. I hope I am not giving any implications that I am taking jabs at anyone's beliefs because I don't want to give that impression.

 

No you're not at all.

 

I do think you're being just a tad too harsh, because Josh does say near the end of his lecture he's not trying to convert anyone and is simply presenting his views, because Radisson has no more right to demand Josh abandon his belief in God than a preacher does demanding that you do believe.

 

And the Muslim family isn't portrayed as inherently wrong, the focus character of them just happens to be a Christian convert because that makes her relevant to Josh's story. That's just narrative causality there. The only atheist character that's portrayed as completely bad is Radisson, everyone else (including most of the students) are just in the ambivalent category.

 

However, I think I've made my equal dissatisfaction with the movie quite clear in my other posts. Just not for the same reasons you are.

I dream of a time where there is no religion, only God, and that those who hide behind the false image of the Son of Man shall soon stand before Him. God is not religion, but a spiritual bond.

 

This movie is not deservant of such a low imdb score, but is indeed deserving of criticism for displaying people as cardboard.

 

I can't say whether I disagree or agree with you there. I don't know if Jesus was God's son, but I have that He was. So I certainly don't use Jesus as my shield. Rather I try to be His champion. (And the Bhudda's.  :lol: )

 

I'm completely behind the "God is a spiritual bond" idea but religion is simply a framing device, societal or personal, for that bond. You have religion, it's just not one externally practiced by any but yourself. Which is fine as long as it's sincere.

 

I will say, I'm a little hurt that you would say such a thing directly against Jesus Himself. Whether He was divine or not, He was a kind, wise, and selfless leader.

 

I'm going to keep saying it, this movie at least deserves acknowledgment for trying to be meaningful, even if it didn't succeed.

Edited by Steel Accord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you've been saying in this thread so far, but I don't understand why you would say this:

 

 

 

I will say, I'm a little hurt that you would say such a thing directly against Jesus Himself. Whether He was divine or not, He was a kind, wise, and selfless leader.

 

 

If it's because I said that "those who hide behind the false image of the Son of Man shall soon stand before Him (God)", then I couldn't disagree more.

 

What I meant with "false image" is that I'm being critical of those hypocritical people who do things for personal gain and evil, doing it in the name of God and in the name of Jesus, and when the time comes, they shall stand before God and be judged as sinners.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind people wanting to make religious movies, that's fine, but... Did they really have to make an atheist into such a stereotypical bad guy? One who also wouldn't be allowed to do any of the stuff that he did? The teacher would not have been able to force the students to write about anything religious like that as portrayed in the trailer. At that point, that is where I start to get really angry and annoyed, as if I was making a movie I would want to avoid being offensive like that, unless it was done in humor. The antagonist here never felt like it was done for comedy, but instead just felt like a really badly written villain. Maybe the movie was different, maybe the movie made him a bit more relatable, I don't know, I refuse to go see the movie as of what I have seen. (Note, I have not seen the movie, only trailers and atheist reviews, therefore biased opinions may be located in this)

  • Brohoof 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you've been saying in this thread so far, but I don't understand why you would say this:

 

 

 

 

 

If it's because I said that "those who hide behind the false image of the Son of Man shall soon stand before Him (God)", then I couldn't disagree more.

 

What I ment with "false image" is that I'm being critical of those hypocritical people who do things for personal gain and evil, doing it in the name of God and in the name of Jesus, and when the time comes, they shall stand before God and be judged as sinners.

 

 

Ahhhhh you meant those who pay lip service to God but don't actually live with the message. I see. My mistake and my sincerest apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a Christian myself, I obviously liked this movie for certain reasons, especially the awesome appearances :squee:, however, as a movie, it certainly left a lot to be desired. But that's all I'm going to say here.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind people wanting to make religious movies, that's fine, but... Did they really have to make an atheist into such a stereotypical bad guy? One who also wouldn't be allowed to do any of the stuff that he did? The teacher would not have been able to force the students to write about anything religious like that as portrayed in the trailer. At that point, that is where I start to get really angry and annoyed, as if I was making a movie I would want to avoid being offensive like that, unless it was done in humor. The antagonist here never felt like it was done for comedy, but instead just felt like a really badly written villain. Maybe the movie was different, maybe the movie made him a bit more relatable, I don't know, I refuse to go see the movie as of what I have seen. (Note, I have not seen the movie, only trailers and atheist reviews, therefore biased opinions may be located in this)

 

Well given you admit you haven't seen the movie so you're lack of knowledge as to Radisson is understandable.

 

As with most things in this movie, he doesn't start out quite as manipulative so much as he does draconian. Something I'm sure we've at least heard some college professors can be like. He's shown later to be in a committed relationship with a woman who actually is religious so there is some depth to his character.

 

Again, as with almost the entire movie, the baby gets thrown out with the bath water toward the end.

Being a Christian myself, I obviously liked this movie for certain reasons, especially the awesome appearances :squee:, however, as a movie, it certainly left a lot to be desired. But that's all I'm going to say here.

 

Unrelated, but I LOVE the signature. That moment solidified Cap's status as my favorite superhero.  :wub:

Edited by Steel Accord
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...